A novel composition—the Singapore Court of Appeal’s landmark judgment develops a composite approach for determining the governing law for subject-matter arbitrability (Anupam v Westbridge)

Article summary

Arbitration analysis: In Anupam v Westbridge, the Singapore Court of Appeal (‘SGCA’) held that, when determining the arbitrability of a dispute, regard must be given to both the law of the seat and the proper law of the arbitration clause. That is a novel holding. Before this decision, most national courts have only focused on the law of the seat (but not the proper law of the arbitration clause) when determining the arbitrability of a dispute. But that narrow focus not only arguably underplays the national interests of states (other than the seat) in excluding issues with a wider public impact from arbitration. It also undermines the parties’ freedom in choosing a foreign system of law for their arbitration clause. The SGCA introduced a composite approach that prevents a dispute from going to arbitration if it were non-arbitrable under either the law of the seat or the proper...